These thoughts have been brewing for many years, and anybody who has been on the Bellarmine Forums will recognise them as nothing new, but the present circumstances give them some urgency. I refer to the quite remarkable opening of minds to the possibility of sede vacante amongst SSPX people at present. It really is a watershed.

These thoughts have been brewing for many years, and anybody who has been on the Bellarmine Forums will recognise them as nothing new, but the present circumstances give them some urgency. I refer to the quite remarkable opening of minds to the possibility of sede vacante amongst SSPX people at present. It really is a watershed.

Just so I am certain that I understand you correctly, and please bear with my dull mind, are you saying that coming to a concrete decision as to whether the pope is the pope or not is not what is important, it is enough to see the disaster that passes for the Catholic Church these days. Therefore, going to a sedevacantist chapel is a life boat to get into during this crisis to preserve one's Faith?

Tue May 22, 2012 4:17 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Sedevacantism, Safety, and Peace

Lorraine wrote:

Thanks from me too, John.

Just so I am certain that I understand you correctly, and please bear with my dull mind, are you saying that coming to a concrete decision as to whether the pope is the pope or not is not what is important, it is enough to see the disaster that passes for the Catholic Church these days. Therefore, going to a sedevacantist chapel is a life boat to get into during this crisis to preserve one's Faith?

What I am saying is that it is true that Benedict is not pope. That's my judgement. I think it objectively certain, or I wouldn't hold it.

I am also aware, having debated sedevacantism for 15 or more years with everybody from bishops of the Society to kooks on the Internet, that "sedevacantism" is usually seen as a dogmatic position which involves condemning others, abandoning the Mass, and causing lots of trouble for the clergy. For this reason I am trying to undermine this view of our position, and suggesting that SSPX people look at adopting at least the position of the Archbishop.

People who adopt his position are relatively outside the influence of the Modernists, but as we know, not completely so. But at least they will be against a deal, and the evidence for this is very strong. The SSPX clergy who are faithful to the Archbishop are opposed to a deal. The anti-sedevacantists are zealous for a deal.

As for which chapel to attend, I have no particular desire to go to a sedevacantist chapel. I want a valid priest, who is certainly a Catholic, who gives good sermons, and who isn't a fanatic. At many sedevacantist chapels such a priest can be found, but at many others the case is obviously different. I think it's a case-by-case thing.

_________________In Christ our King.

Tue May 22, 2012 4:31 pm

MConstantine

Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 3:27 pmPosts: 14

Re: Sedevacantism, Safety, and Peace

A nicely articulated summary of the situation.

I think the difficulties and differences outlined in your treatise are neatly demonstrated on the Tradition In Action organisation's website (http://www.traditioninaction.org), especially in those more recent articles dealing with the SSPX. TIA has been avowedly critical and unsupportive of the SSPX-Rome deal, and certain members of SSPX orders have reported (leaked) to TIA that the SSPX authorities have begun telling their members - especially members of orders - to disregard TIA as being ostensibly Novus Ordo (a very ridiculous thing to allege considering their militant zeal against, and denunciation of, all things Vatican II; as also their willingness to expose absurdities and abuses said or committed by the Novus Ordo heirarchy, regardless of who said or did it - including the papal claimants).

From the above, it is clear the +Fellay faction is not only entering into a schism against SSPX hardliners and conservatives (represented by the Three) but beginning even to distance itself from the Novus Ordo's own hardline, traditional communities - at least whenever deemed politically expedient.

... the SSPX is losing a lot of friends in this and will likely end up in a very compromising situation should they reconcile, quite alone after grieving and alienating so many people who would otherwise have been their friends. It is truly tragic.

I think that certainly the majority of us here would agree with this statement. I know I and my family most certainly do. It is possible that I go a bit further when I insist that given what the Church IS and what the Papacy IS, it is simply impossible for Benny to be anything but an anti-pope. In point of fact, in my opinion, he is not even a Catholic.

John Lane wrote:

As for which chapel to attend, I have no particular desire to go to a sedevacantist chapel. I want a valid priest, who is certainly a Catholic, who gives good sermons, and who isn't a fanatic. I think it's a case-by-case thing.

This also pretty much coincides with our position.

_________________Kenneth G. Gordon

Tue May 22, 2012 11:15 pm

Tommy Short

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 1:41 pmPosts: 84Location: USA

Re: Sedevacantism, Safety, and Peace

John; I completely agree with your position on the pose issue. I too feel objectively certain in the sedevacantist position. Even if you were to take out the technical theological arguments, I would be inclined to accept the premise of the vacant see in self-defense of my faith and that of my family. To accept that the Vatican II Church is the the True Church would demand one to accept the church is not infallible, indeffectible and could promote error and contradicition.

My question is this; I like you simply seek a valid priest. I have over the years divorced myself from the need for a good sermon. They are few and far between in my experience as is the intellectual prowess of many clerics. Sede clerics arer no more one, holy or apostolic then the novus ordo clan. What I am left with is validity. So, are you and can you be as objectively certain about this validty as you are about the vacancy? Any one with a minimum of Catholic sense realizes all the question and doubts legitimately raised about certain orders; such as Bishop Thuc. Where does that leave us who have recourse to that particular lineage? Are we too sweep away the doubts, and simply bow our heads and do what we do? Or is it so simple that it is wrong to harbor any doubt?

Thu May 02, 2013 7:32 pm

St.Justin

Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 5:55 pmPosts: 59Location: Florida

Re: Sedevacantism, Safety, and Peace

Tommy Short wrote:

John; I completely agree with your position on the pose issue. I too feel objectively certain in the sedevacantist position. Even if you were to take out the technical theological arguments, I would be inclined to accept the premise of the vacant see in self-defense of my faith and that of my family. To accept that the Vatican II Church is the the True Church would demand one to accept the church is not infallible, indeffectible and could promote error and contradicition.

My question is this; I like you simply seek a valid priest. I have over the years divorced myself from the need for a good sermon. They are few and far between in my experience as is the intellectual prowess of many clerics. Sede clerics arer no more one, holy or apostolic then the novus ordo clan. What I am left with is validity. So, are you and can you be as objectively certain about this validty as you are about the vacancy? Any one with a minimum of Catholic sense realizes all the question and doubts legitimately raised about certain orders; such as Bishop Thuc. Where does that leave us who have recourse to that particular lineage? Are we too sweep away the doubts, and simply bow our heads and do what we do? Or is it so simple that it is wrong to harbor any doubt?

John, could you be more specific as to what you mean by a valid Priest? Are there certain lineages that you have a problem with? On what do you base your position as to which Priest are or are not valid?

John, could you be more specific as to what you mean by a valid Priest? Are there certain lineages that you have a problem with? On what do you base your position as to which Priest are or are not valid?

If I may, I will give my opinion, and the method we follow here. Please remember that neither I, nor anyone else here, has either the competence in Canon Law, or the authority to impose our personal beliefs on anyone. Therefore, take what I say here as information, not "dogma".

In our opinion (mine and my family's), any man ordained after 1969 by any NO "bishop" is automatically suspect of being invalidly ordained. And this is not so much due to the possibly defective priestly ordination rite of Paul VI, but due to the most certainly (in my opinion) invalid rite of Montini's "ordination" of a Bishop.

Therefore, that automatically, to us, cuts out all NO priests, except any who were ordained prior to 1969. And we avoid having anything whatever to do with NO priests, even those who are possibly validly ordained.

Secondly, from extensive discussion here and elsewhere, it seems certain that the ordinations and consecrations by Abp. Lefebvre, Castro Meyer, and Thuc, are valid, and remain so. Also those of Bishop Musey for the CMRI.

We have chosen, and have been able, to find old priests, all of whom are well over 75 years of age, who have provided us with the Traditional Mass and valid Sacraments for the past 30+ years. However, our present good priest is 87 years old, and none of them can live much longer. Our youngest one is 78. After they are gone, we don't know what we will end up having to do.

However, we have put our prayers and trust in Our Lady, and She has always made it possible for us to find valid Mass and Sacraments up to now. What will happen after our old priests are all gone, we leave up to Her. She has never yet let us down.

_________________Kenneth G. Gordon

Fri May 03, 2013 4:15 pm

Thomas Williams

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 9:15 pmPosts: 60

Re: Sedevacantism, Safety, and Peace

Ken Gordon wrote:

Secondly, from extensive discussion here and elsewhere, it seems certain that the ordinations and consecrations by Abp. Lefebvre, Castro Meyer, and Thuc, are valid, and remain so. Also those of Bishop Musey for the CMRI.

Certainly the ordinations and consecration by Bishop Mendez for the SSPV as well.

Ken Gordon wrote:

Therefore, that automatically, to us, cuts out all NO priests, except any who were ordained prior to 1969. And we avoid having anything whatever to do with NO priests, even those who are possibly validly ordained.

I take it the NO rite of ordination, created in 1966, wasn't used by bishops until the same year as the full introduction of the NO? In what research I've conducted on the matter, I haven't been able to find out if the liturgical books containing the rite of priestly ordination (IIRC it's in the Pontificale) would have been distributed to all the bishops of the world straight from the Vatican, if the bishops were expected to purchase their own copies of the appropriate book, and if some bishops for whatever reason delayed in using the new books for such rites...

_________________Thomas Williams

Sat May 11, 2013 8:17 pm

St.Justin

Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 5:55 pmPosts: 59Location: Florida

Re: Sedevacantism, Safety, and Peace

The new rite was amended in 1968 to clear up the problem areas in the first draft..

Also I ask the previous question, not because I don't understan matter form and intention, but because John lefta question in my mind as to what he meant by even some sedes may not be valid aand that caused me to wonder to what he was referring.

Thomas Williams wrote:

Ken Gordon wrote:

Secondly, from extensive discussion here and elsewhere, it seems certain that the ordinations and consecrations by Abp. Lefebvre, Castro Meyer, and Thuc, are valid, and remain so. Also those of Bishop Musey for the CMRI.

Certainly the ordinations and consecration by Bishop Mendez for the SSPV as well.

Ken Gordon wrote:

Therefore, that automatically, to us, cuts out all NO priests, except any who were ordained prior to 1969. And we avoid having anything whatever to do with NO priests, even those who are possibly validly ordained.

I take it the NO rite of ordination, created in 1966, wasn't used by bishops until the same year as the full introduction of the NO? In what research I've conducted on the matter, I haven't been able to find out if the liturgical books containing the rite of priestly ordination (IIRC it's in the Pontificale) would have been distributed to all the bishops of the world straight from the Vatican, if the bishops were expected to purchase their own copies of the appropriate book, and if some bishops for whatever reason delayed in using the new books for such rites...

Sat May 11, 2013 8:42 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Sedevacantism, Safety, and Peace

St.Justin wrote:

John, could you be more specific as to what you mean by a valid Priest? Are there certain lineages that you have a problem with? On what do you base your position as to which Priest are or are not valid?

I don't have a problem with the Thuc line, if that's what you are asking. I can see in hindsight that my comments as follows could be misunderstood, "As for which chapel to attend, I have no particular desire to go to a sedevacantist chapel. I want a valid priest, who is certainly a Catholic, who gives good sermons, and who isn't a fanatic." I didn't mean to suggest that sedevacantist priests are less likely than others to be validly ordained. My meaning would have come out more clearly if I had written, "I have no particular desire to go to a sedevacantist chapel, as such." That is, I don't have any preference for sedevacantist clergy or chapels. There are good priests who are sede, and there are good priests who aren't. There are nutters and hopeless cases in both categories also.

I am aware that there is a general feeling amongst probably many sedes to the effect that sede clergy "get it" and therefore they are safer in some sense. My experience doesn't support this view. I think sede clergy tend to be quite distinctly less well educated than SSPX priests, for example. This probably has several causes, but chief among them is that sede groups are less well resourced than the SSPX. Another is that the sede clergy on the whole are simply not very interested in theology. This may surprise some, but it's an obvious fact, despite the irony of it. Not only is that true, it's even true that sede clergy, on the whole, are not very interested in the theology and law related to sedevacantism itself.

_________________In Christ our King.

Sun May 12, 2013 11:33 pm

St.Justin

Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 5:55 pmPosts: 59Location: Florida

Re: Sedevacantism, Safety, and Peace

That is what I was hoping you meant and I agree. Thanks.

John Lane wrote:

St.Justin wrote:

John, could you be more specific as to what you mean by a valid Priest? Are there certain lineages that you have a problem with? On what do you base your position as to which Priest are or are not valid?

I don't have a problem with the Thuc line, if that's what you are asking. I can see in hindsight that my comments as follows could be misunderstood, "As for which chapel to attend, I have no particular desire to go to a sedevacantist chapel. I want a valid priest, who is certainly a Catholic, who gives good sermons, and who isn't a fanatic." I didn't mean to suggest that sedevacantist priests are less likely than others to be validly ordained. My meaning would have come out more clearly if I had written, "I have no particular desire to go to a sedevacantist chapel, as such." That is, I don't have any preference for sedevacantist clergy or chapels. There are good priests who are sede, and there are good priests who aren't. There are nutters and hopeless cases in both categories also.

I am aware that there is a general feeling amongst probably many sedes to the effect that sede clergy "get it" and therefore they are safer in some sense. My experience doesn't support this view. I think sede clergy tend to be quite distinctly less well educated than SSPX priests, for example. This probably has several causes, but chief among them is that sede groups are less well resourced than the SSPX. Another is that the sede clergy on the whole are simply not very interested in theology. This may surprise some, but it's an obvious fact, despite the irony of it. Not only is that true, it's even true that sede clergy, on the whole, are not very interested in the theology and law related to sedevacantism itself.

Sun May 12, 2013 11:53 pm

RobertJS

Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 2:18 pmPosts: 73Location: New England

Re: Sedevacantism, Safety, and Peace

John Lane wrote:

I am aware that there is a general feeling amongst probably many sedes to the effect that sede clergy "get it" and therefore they are safer in some sense. My experience doesn't support this view. I think sede clergy tend to be quite distinctly less well educated than SSPX priests, for example. This probably has several causes, but chief among them is that sede groups are less well resourced than the SSPX. Another is that the sede clergy on the whole are simply not very interested in theology. This may surprise some, but it's an obvious fact, despite the irony of it. Not only is that true, it's even true that sede clergy, on the whole, are not very interested in the theology and law related to sedevacantism itself.

In my rich experiences dealing with SSPX clergy and laity, I have come solidly to the contrary opinion. But, aside from my own experiences, Bp. Robert Neville gives testimony. He was trained in the SSPX (post-Lefebvre). Shortly after ordination he realized he had the wrong position and then worked under Bp. Sanborn for several years. So, this is a man having sincerely held both positions, with a length of time in both worlds. He told me, personally, that he had been subject to poor training in the SSPX.

_________________It prays to poofread!

Mon May 13, 2013 10:21 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Sedevacantism, Safety, and Peace

RobertJS wrote:

John Lane wrote:

I am aware that there is a general feeling amongst probably many sedes to the effect that sede clergy "get it" and therefore they are safer in some sense. My experience doesn't support this view. I think sede clergy tend to be quite distinctly less well educated than SSPX priests, for example. This probably has several causes, but chief among them is that sede groups are less well resourced than the SSPX. Another is that the sede clergy on the whole are simply not very interested in theology. This may surprise some, but it's an obvious fact, despite the irony of it. Not only is that true, it's even true that sede clergy, on the whole, are not very interested in the theology and law related to sedevacantism itself.

In my rich experiences dealing with SSPX clergy and laity, I have come solidly to the contrary opinion.

I have no idea what you're describing as "rich experiences" but I suspect you're including online experiences, and if so, that is a catastrophic error. Educated people, and serious people, generally avoid the Internet. Idiots love it. So, the Internet presents a completely false picture of the relative proportions of educated and serious, versus ignorant and flippant, persons.

At any rate, I expressed several opinions, yet you reduce your reply to the singular.

1. I think sede clergy tend to be quite distinctly less well educated than SSPX priests, for example. 2. This probably has several causes, but chief among them is that sede groups are less well resourced than the SSPX. 3. Another is that the sede clergy on the whole are simply not very interested in theology. This may surprise some, but it's an obvious fact, despite the irony of it. 4. Not only is that true, it's even true that sede clergy, on the whole, are not very interested in the theology and law related to sedevacantism itself.

RobertJS wrote:

But, aside from my own experiences, Bp. Robert Neville gives testimony. He was trained in the SSPX (post-Lefebvre). Shortly after ordination he realized he had the wrong position and then worked under Bp. Sanborn for several years. So, this is a man having sincerely held both positions, with a length of time in both worlds. He told me, personally, that he had been subject to poor training in the SSPX.

Fr. Neville is claiming that he was poorly trained, and became a sedevacantist. I thought you were presenting his testimony in an attempt to disprove my comment? Does his testimony not support my opinion?

_________________In Christ our King.

Mon May 13, 2013 11:27 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Sedevacantism, Safety, and Peace

RobertJS, let me make it a little easier to see the point. I have known a significant number of sede clergy over the years, and not one of them has arrived at the sede position by making a study of ecclesiology or law. What they did, in every case, is either adopt the view of somebody else that they respected (an entirely reasonable thing to do), or they leaped to the position themselves. (I myself did the first of these - it is true there was a particular argument that convinced me, but it's also true that I made no study of the subject, I merely trusted that my teacher had done so.) Nor has any of our clergy made any appreciable study of the question after the fact. It simply doesn't interest them that much.

Has it not ever occurred to you that there are no serious books dealing positively with sedevacantism, except the one by the layman, Da Silveira (which book actually concludes, gently, against our view)? Has it not occurred to you that many of the most prominent (and best) apologists for our view have been laymen? Do you think it insignificant that the best primary texts we have in English, for example, have all come from John Daly, Jim Larrabee, Jim McNally (RIP) or some other layman?

Even the most active clerical sede apologist, Fr. Cekada, has not put together any serious book-length study of the question, preferring instead to focus on liturgical matters. Our clergy are not interested in the kinds of questions aired here on this forum. It's simply a public fact that this is the case.

The SSPX, on the other hand, has plenty of theologians in its ranks, and Fr. Bourmaud (for example) has produced this amazing tome: http://www.amazon.com/One-Hundred-Years ... B007PJ6XEG If you haven't seen it, get a copy, and then see if you can name a sede priest who could write anything nearly as profound or thorough. I can think of some names who might be able to do so, but they would not have the leisure, which neatly illustrates my point about the difference in resources. So the few who might be interested do not have the time.

_________________In Christ our King.

Tue May 14, 2013 1:01 pm

RobertJS

Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 2:18 pmPosts: 73Location: New England

Re: Sedevacantism, Safety, and Peace

John Lane wrote:

RobertJS wrote:

John Lane wrote:

I am aware that there is a general feeling amongst probably many sedes to the effect that sede clergy "get it" and therefore they are safer in some sense. My experience doesn't support this view. I think sede clergy tend to be quite distinctly less well educated than SSPX priests, for example. This probably has several causes, but chief among them is that sede groups are less well resourced than the SSPX. Another is that the sede clergy on the whole are simply not very interested in theology. This may surprise some, but it's an obvious fact, despite the irony of it. Not only is that true, it's even true that sede clergy, on the whole, are not very interested in the theology and law related to sedevacantism itself.

In my rich experiences dealing with SSPX clergy and laity, I have come solidly to the contrary opinion.

I have no idea what you're describing as "rich experiences" but I suspect you're including online experiences, and if so, that is a catastrophic error. Educated people, and serious people, generally avoid the Internet. Idiots love it. So, the Internet presents a completely false picture of the relative proportions of educated and serious, versus ignorant and flippant, persons.

At any rate, I expressed several opinions, yet you reduce your reply to the singular.

1. I think sede clergy tend to be quite distinctly less well educated than SSPX priests, for example. 2. This probably has several causes, but chief among them is that sede groups are less well resourced than the SSPX. 3. Another is that the sede clergy on the whole are simply not very interested in theology. This may surprise some, but it's an obvious fact, despite the irony of it. 4. Not only is that true, it's even true that sede clergy, on the whole, are not very interested in the theology and law related to sedevacantism itself.

RobertJS wrote:

But, aside from my own experiences, Bp. Robert Neville gives testimony. He was trained in the SSPX (post-Lefebvre). Shortly after ordination he realized he had the wrong position and then worked under Bp. Sanborn for several years. So, this is a man having sincerely held both positions, with a length of time in both worlds. He told me, personally, that he had been subject to poor training in the SSPX.

Fr. Neville is claiming that he was poorly trained, and became a sedevacantist. I thought you were presenting his testimony in an attempt to disprove my comment? Does his testimony not support my opinion?

Heresiarchs of history, and the men who gave us Vatican II, had a high quality of education, so whether the SSPX does or doesn't, is neither here nor there.

Also, the most uneducated Catholic with Faith, grace & virtue can understand and believe there is an heretical non-pope in Rome. So, the reference about Bp. Neville doesn't support your opinion, but is contrary. I would say that his opinion is at least as weighty as your own.

I must add, while people can be subject to poor training, it doesn't necessarily mean they were, in fact, poorly trained. One's own prayers and efforts can supplement what is lacking.

What really matters are the issues themselves. The way the SSPX handles the most crucial contemporary issues pertaining to the papacy, the magisterium and the Church is less than unimpressive, to put it mildly.

_________________It prays to poofread!

Tue May 14, 2013 10:44 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Sedevacantism, Safety, and Peace

RobertJS wrote:

Heresiarchs of history, and the men who gave us Vatican II, had a high quality of education, so whether the SSPX does or doesn't, is neither here nor there.

Is this supposed to be addressing something I said? You are merely changing the subject. I had said that contrary to the vague impression of many sedevacantists, the clergy who agree with us are not better educated, but worse educated. Now, you essentially assert that education is irrelevant. Even assuming that your Know-Nothing idea were sound, it would not touch the point at issue.

RobertJS wrote:

Also, the most uneducated Catholic with Faith, grace & virtue can understand and believe there is an heretical non-pope in Rome.

Agreed. It's also true that the less educated a man is, the fewer distinctions he grasps, and the more likely he is to think that things are simpler than they are, or more clear, or more certain.

RobertJS wrote:

So, the reference about Bp. Neville doesn't support your opinion, but is contrary. I would say that his opinion is at least as weighty as your own.

Of course his opinion is at least as weighty as my own. Indeed, I'd say his education (being a seminary one, at the hands of the SSPX) was immeasurably superior to mine also. But he doesn't agree, according to you. In his view, according to you, his education was poor. But he (actually, you) cannot have it both ways. Perhaps you could re-state in clearer terms whatever it was you were trying to prove by citing Bishop Neville's testimony against his own clerical education.

RobertJS wrote:

I must add, while people can be subject to poor training, it doesn't necessarily mean they were, in fact, poorly trained. One's own prayers and efforts can supplement what is lacking.

Right, so you are saying what Fr. Cekada and Bishop Sanborn have also said over the years - their seminary education was appalling but they flourished and became intellectual stars anyway.

RobertJS wrote:

What really matters are the issues themselves.

Agreed. But if you only care about the issues, why did you react to my casual comments above? Can you not see that the entire thrust of my comments was that our strength is on the issues, not the manpower?

RobertJS wrote:

The way the SSPX handles the most crucial contemporary issues pertaining to the papacy, the magisterium and the Church is less than unimpressive, to put it mildly.

"Four legs good, two legs bad."

What have you contributed which contrasts so favourably with what the SSPX has done?

_________________In Christ our King.

Wed May 15, 2013 12:14 am

Lycobates

Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 2:18 pmPosts: 9

Re: Sedevacantism, Safety, and Peace

Thomas Williams wrote:

I take it the NO rite of ordination, created in 1966, wasn't used by bishops until the same year as the full introduction of the NO? In what research I've conducted on the matter, I haven't been able to find out if the liturgical books containing the rite of priestly ordination (IIRC it's in the Pontificale) would have been distributed to all the bishops of the world straight from the Vatican, if the bishops were expected to purchase their own copies of the appropriate book, and if some bishops for whatever reason delayed in using the new books for such rites...

A few more facts for the information of the interested reader.

The date of the "promulgation" by Montini of the new orders is 18.6.1968. There followed a transitional period and from 1.4.1969 onwards their use in the conciliar church is obligatory.Only one bishop, as far as I know, was consecrated according to the new rite before 18.6.1968, "ad experimentum" (the texts were not yet published): the abbé André Loucheur, in Bafia/Cameroon, on 19.3.1968. He is dead and, according to the website "Catholic Hierarchy", never consecrated a bishop (but he might have "ordained" a few priests in Bafia between 1968 and 1977).

Three periods should therefore be distinguished:

1) before 18.6.1968: all valid, presumably, but one;2) between 18.6.1968 and 1.4.1969: to be confirmed on a case per case basis as both the old and new form may have been used according to availability or personal choice;3) after 1.4.1969: none valid, unless use of the traditional Pontificale (against Montini’s prescription) by a valid bishop can be proved.

Living bishops of the Latin rite (calculated from the data of "Catholic Hierarchy"), as of 15.5.2013:Period 1): 116 (of whom appointed before 9.10.1958: 13)Period 2): 21Period 3): unknown

To be added: the bishops of the Lefebvre-, Mendez- and Thuc-line, and perhaps some others; and China, from 1949/50 onwards maybe until present.

Further: the bishops for the Oriental rites in union with Rome, until present.(Some doubts however exist here too, as a few Oriental rites were "infected" by Latins, sometimes after 1968, e.g. some Maronites, Syro-Malabarese and Ukrainians)

These figures only concern the bishops' validity of course.

As far as jurisdiction is concerned: which of these bishops can be (still) considered a Catholic bishop and whether any of the period 1)-bishops who were appointed under Pope Pius XII (only 13 are left) retains ordinary jurisdiction is another matter altogether.

I take it that the “emergency”-bishops from the Lefebvre-, Mendez- and Thuc-lines do not have ordinary jurisdiction and do not claim it either.

Wed May 15, 2013 9:55 am

RobertJS

Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 2:18 pmPosts: 73Location: New England

Re: Sedevacantism, Safety, and Peace

John Lane wrote:

I think sede clergy tend to be quite distinctly less well educated than SSPX priests, for example.

This is solely what I decided to comment on. I personally disagreed, as well as gave a substantial support for my own opinion. If you can find a clergyman who is in the SSPX who was trained in a sedevacantist seminary and has the contrary opinion to Bp. Neville, be my guest to provide it. I find what I gave is weighty in itself, and I am satisfied to allow readers to decide for themselves from there.

I didn't say it was irrelevant; that is your word. It is always in some way valuable to attempt to correct an error in the interest of truth. I said it is "neither here nor there" in the context of not being worth the time making a heated discussion out of that one point when crucial issues are not inherently affected by it.

There is good, better & best in this world, and we can always be satisfied with "good" because it is sufficient. I would rather have a sufficiently trained priest (such as the Cure of Ars) who has the true faith intact, than spend too much energy emphasizing what is the "better" education, when those you claim have it, espouse a blasphemous and heretical position that is harmful to souls. The proof is really in the tasting of the pudding.

_________________It prays to poofread!

Wed May 15, 2013 5:42 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Sedevacantism, Safety, and Peace

Your post is so filled with errors I do not know where to begin, so I'll only comment on the many errors in this last paragraph:

RobertJS wrote:

There is good, better & best in this world, and we can always be satisfied with "good" because it is sufficient. I would rather have a sufficiently trained priest (such as the Cure of Ars) who has the true faith intact, than spend too much energy emphasizing what is the "better" education, when those you claim have it, espouse a blasphemous and heretical position that is harmful to souls. The proof is really in the tasting of the pudding.

1. Nobody is so much as hinting at the idea that most of us have any choice in which priest we approach for mass and the sacraments.2. Nobody is so much as hinting at the idea that we should select our priest based upon his level of education (although it is self-evident that more genuine education is better than less).3. I don't understand the implied comparison regarding "too much energy emphasising" - it seems like a barbarous ad hominem, from where I sit, but perhaps it was merely a barbarously worded something else, the meaning of which is consequently unclear.4. If you're going to assert that the views of the vast bulk of good, traditional, Catholics, constitute "a blasphemous and heretical position that is harmful to souls," then you had better be prepared to prove it. And, of course, now that you've expressed that extraordinarily arrogant and heartless view, it is apparent why you reacted to a passing comment as you did, with "energy." Cognitive dissonance, they call it.

The question of whether or not the SSPX position is heretical, schismatic or neither depends on the individual SSPX priest the faithful talks to as some are secret sedevacantist. However, some SSPX priests openly condemn sedevacantism. Currently here in St Cloud, MN, the sedevacantists are treated as non-catholics as for example at a recent funeral, a SSPX priest at the sermon warned sedevacantists to not come up to the communion rail.

But the main question here should be not how to condemn a whole group, but rather to answer the question of if the non-sedevacantist position is harmful to souls or not.

I would argue that the non-sedevacantist position is harmful to souls for the following reasons. Accepting the Vatican II popes are true either leads to a rejection of lawful authority or Vatican I definition of papal infallibility.

“So then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both overall and each of the churches and overall and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema. (Vatican I: Session 4).”

If he is the pope ruling for the universal Church on faith and morals (i.e. teachings of the Council of Vatican II like religious liberty), he is infallible, and a Catholic must submit to his teaching. If it is a disciplinary matter, he is the authority which one has to submit their will to (i.e. The matter of the consecration of the four bishops by Archbishop Lefebvre). To recognize a man as pope, and then refuse to follow his commands which are not evil is to fall into schism. Liken it to a child who while praying for his father refuses to listen to him. How is this obedience? No, this is the definition of schism.

Or to say a pope can error or an ecumenical council (Vatican II) can error in their universal teaching on faith and morals is to deny Vatican I. And to accept Vatican II is to fall into error.

(Often I hear Vatican II was not infallible because it was not a doctrinal ecumenical council but a pastoral one. This does not change the fact that it was infallibly promulgated by Paul VI nor excuse one of saying it could error. A person may be ignorant or error in good faith, but nevertheless he is still in error. A fact is still a fact.)

The other place it logically leads is religious indifferentism. If your head does not matter neither does your faith.

Fri Jul 19, 2013 10:40 pm

James Francis

Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:27 pmPosts: 80

Re: Sedevacantism, Safety, and Peace

It seems to me that this needs more precision:I

Quote:

f he is the pope ruling for the universal Church on faith and morals (i.e. teachings of the Council of Vatican II like religious liberty), he is infallible, and a Catholic must submit to his teaching. If it is a disciplinary matter, he is the authority which one has to submit their will to (i.e. The matter of the consecration of the four bishops by Archbishop Lefebvre). To recognize a man as pope, and then refuse to follow his commands which are not evil is to fall into schism. Liken it to a child who while praying for his father refuses to listen to him. How is this obedience? No, this is the definition of schism.

The question- in so far as I understand it- is whether or not the propositions contained in the documents of Vatican II have in fact been promulgated in such a way as to be binding on the faithful. This seems to be a matter of legitimate debate; the SSPX allude to statements from Paul VI and (if I recall rightly) a conciliar relator specifying the limits of what the council intended to teach in a binding way; further to this, it is suggested that- as a result of this precision in regard to what was actually being taught with the intention of binding the faithful- nothing in the documents is taught with the intention of binding the faithful. This seems to me to be an intellectually reasonable position. I don't think it carries the day, but to hold it does not involve contradiction and reconciles many facts.

A parallel case has been discussed in this place recently, namely the promulgation (or not) of the Novus Ordo Missae. It seems impossible to demonstrate that the NOM was in fact promulgated by Paul VI (for clarity's sake I'm not suggesting anyone else promulgated it either; only that it wasn't promulgated at all). Now a law, to be a law, must be promulgated. So, if the NOM does not constitute a law, one is not lacking in obedience, one is not being a hypocrite and one is not being inconsistent with the requirement of submission to the Roman Pontiff by refusing to obey a non-law.

The whole thing hinges on the answer to the obvious question which would follow a statement such as this:

Quote:

To recognize a man as pope, and then refuse to follow his commands which are not evil is to fall into schism.

The obvious question is "what are the commands?"

Sat Jul 20, 2013 6:22 am

Mike

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pmPosts: 483

Re: Sedevacantism, Safety, and Peace

James Francis wrote:

Quote:

The question- in so far as I understand it- is whether or not the propositions contained in the documents of Vatican II have in fact been promulgated in such a way as to be binding on the faithful. This seems to be a matter of legitimate debate; the SSPX allude to statements from Paul VI and (if I recall rightly) a conciliar relator specifying the limits of what the council intended to teach in a binding way; further to this, it is suggested that- as a result of this precision in regard to what was actually being taught with the intention of binding the faithful- nothing in the documents is taught with the intention of binding the faithful. This seems to me to be an intellectually reasonable position. I don't think it carries the day, but to hold it does not involve contradiction and reconciles many facts.

It appears to me that the only obstacle to Vatican II not fulfilling the conditions required for infallibility is the fact that Paul VI was not the Pope.

_________________Yours in JMJ,Mike

Sat Jul 20, 2013 6:42 am

James Schroepfer

Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 4:53 pmPosts: 100

Re: Sedevacantism, Safety, and Peace

In regards to the infallibility of the Vatican II council you are absolutely correct. The whole reason it is not infallible is because Paul VI was not pope. The point is if one accepts Paul VI as a valid pope, he must accept all the teachings of Vatican II. The only way to not accept the teachings would be to recognize Paul VI was not pope. A individual cannot have it both ways.

This is due to the clear language at the end of all sixteen documents:"Each and all these matters which are set forth in this decree have been favorably voted on by the Fathers of the Council. And We, by the apostolic authority given Us by Christ and in union with the Fathers, approve, decree, and establish them in the Holy Spirit and command that what has thus been enacted in synod be promulgated for the glory of God.Given in Rome at St. Peter's, November 21, 1964I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church"

This is binding language. It fits an ex cathedra statement as defined by Vatican I.

What commands do the SSPX refuse? They refuse to submit to the authority of the Church. What SSPX priest is under his local ordinary? Second, they acknowledge the 1983 Code of Cannon law but refuse to follow Canon 844. The code was issued for the universal "catholic" church which they acknowledge. It therefore must be infallible or to claim otherwise is to state Holy Mother Church could error in her teachings be it on faith or morals (conduct necessary for salvation). So to claim it contains error is the same as saying Holy Mother Church has errored which from my understanding would by to deny an essential attribute of the Church. To claim it is not error but refuse to adhere to its command would be to refuse to listen to lawful authority or schism.

Sat Jul 20, 2013 1:38 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Sedevacantism, Safety, and Peace

James Schroepfer wrote:

Currently here in St Cloud, MN, the sedevacantists are treated as non-catholics as for example at a recent funeral, a SSPX priest at the sermon warned sedevacantists to not come up to the communion rail.

James, what is the priest's name please? And whose funeral was it?

James Schroepfer wrote:

I would argue that the non-sedevacantist position is harmful to souls for the following reasons. Accepting the Vatican II popes are true either leads to a rejection of lawful authority or Vatican I definition of papal infallibility.

I agree, but the degree of harm to souls from this is not apparent. I've always thought that the real problem with that position is that it leads to dangerous behaviour, which most certainly harms souls and manifestly so - that is, assisting at the Novus Ordo Missae, assisting at masses offered by badly trained, doubtfully orthodox, priests, and assisting at doubtfully valid masses due to Novus Ordo ordination doubts. All bad! But a lot of this depends on the particular "non-sede" position one is speaking about. That is, Novus Ordo, Indult, or SSPX, for example. These are very different beasts.

The same thing applies to "sedevacantism" which has a few varieties, at least one of which is actually unorthodox, and several of which involve scaring people away from mass and the sacraments. This latter danger is what freaks out good non-sede priests. They think that it's a bit potty for unqualified individuals to be deciding who the pope is, but it's absolute madness for them to run away from mass and the sacraments based upon it - and take innocents such as children with them.

_________________In Christ our King.

Sun Jul 21, 2013 12:50 am

James Francis

Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:27 pmPosts: 80

Re: Sedevacantism, Safety, and Peace

Mike,

Thanks for the link the John Daly article- which I hadn't read before. It is very good and I agree with it. But I'm still inclined to think that there must be some good, coherent explanation why men vastly more learned than I do not come to the conclusion we arrive at, i.e. that Paul VI could not have been the Pope. Perhaps there really is no basis for men like Fr Gleize and Archbishop Lefebvre to reject the sedevacantist conclusion. However, I would not like to claim that, and so I hypothesise that there is some consistent way for them to plough the furrow they do.

Mike and James, may I ask how you account for such learned men not drawing the conclusions we do?

Sun Jul 21, 2013 5:50 am

James Schroepfer

Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 4:53 pmPosts: 100

Re: Sedevacantism, Safety, and Peace

John

The name of the priest is Fr. Christopher Leith, and the funeral was that for Elizabeth Gerads. Nor can I say I disagree with his refusal of communion to sedevacantists if he views them as schismatics for the sacraments are only to be given to those inside the Church. Of course I would argue he would have to prove they are schismatics and outside the Church prior to that refusal which he did not do. The reason I brought this up was simply to point out that one cannot lump all the SSPX priest in one group yet, although this may change as Bishop Fellay seems shrinking the theological box the priests can operate in.

But I have to completely disagree with you John that the sedevacante position is ever harmful to souls. The logical conclusion of the Seat of St. Peter being vacant is never harmful to souls as is the non-sedevacante position. There is not a variety of either conclusion, the seat is vacant or it is not. Yes other opinions and false conclusions which arise from certain persons who also hold the sedevacante position are harmful to souls, but these opinions are completely separate from the sedevacante conclusion itself. The same is true for the non-sedevacantist position as far as additional conclusions from people holding this opinion often arise and are attributed to the non-sedevacantist conclusion itself.

I would also argue that the non-sedevacante position itself is extremely harmful to souls and not just the behavior which results from this belief, although I would agree its devastating effect is for the most part hidden to most traditional Catholics. But one cannot deny the belief itself leads to a protestanizing of traditional Catholics. Traditional Catholics have been trained to become their own popes like Protestants, laugh at lawful authority, or place authority which belongs to another in one who is not their authority (i.e. Catholic Family News, a priest, a lawyer, a bishop) (a bishop does hold authority but he is not in himself infallible (Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Fellay), nor hold the authority of the pope). It also leaves children to grow up in confusion and in danger of falling back into the Novus Ordo.

In responds to the question of how I can account for such learned men not drawing the conclusions we do is because I believe their denial is a result of ignorance or willful denial. The greatest misnomer that has in-trenched itself in the traditional Catholic circles is that Vatican II did not define any doctrine which Catholics must believe or it was not an infallible council. Most traditional Catholics will argue it was only a pastoral council and did not define anything infallibly. They say it through ignorance of the fact that if Paul VI was the pope, the doctrines could not have defined anyway but infallibly for it to be an ecumenical council. Having buried themselves in this position, most are not honest enough to take a look at the facts or are unwilling to do so because they would have to admit there current position is incorrect. Most people are unwilling to admit they are wrong.

To their credit, when I began to look into the matter most of the English translations are void of the text I posted earlier which is necessary for the council to be both infallible and an ecumenical council. I had to consult the latin text to find the excerpt at least after all 16 documents. Why was it not translated into english I do not know. I don’t know if it was left out of other translations into other languages. Without it I myself would not say Paul VI promulgated the documents as infallible. In my opinion it could be many of English priests never read the documents in latin and would be ignorant of the excerpt therefore making their opinion of the council being pastoral legitimate. But ignorance, whether willful or not, does not change facts, and the fact is Paul VI promulgated all 16 of the documents.

To return the question:In fairness though, James Francis, I think you need to lay out what this consistent way is these non-sedevacantist clergy “plough the furrow they do.”

Mon Jul 22, 2013 5:24 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Sedevacantism, Safety, and Peace

James Schroepfer wrote:

The name of the priest is Fr. Christopher Leith, and the funeral was that for Elizabeth Gerads.

But I have to completely disagree with you John that the sedevacante position is ever harmful to souls. The logical conclusion of the Seat of St. Peter being vacant is never harmful to souls as is the non-sedevacante position. There is not a variety of either conclusion, the seat is vacant or it is not. Yes other opinions and false conclusions which arise from certain persons who also hold the sedevacante position are harmful to souls, but these opinions are completely separate from the sedevacante conclusion itself.

Theoretically they are distinct from the sedevacantist position in itself, but in the concrete they are wedded to it until death. Look around.

James Schroepfer wrote:

I would also argue that the non-sedevacante position itself is extremely harmful to souls and not just the behavior which results from this belief, although I would agree its devastating effect is for the most part hidden to most traditional Catholics. But one cannot deny the belief itself leads to a protestanizing of traditional Catholics. Traditional Catholics have been trained to become their own popes like Protestants, laugh at lawful authority, or place authority which belongs to another in one who is not their authority (i.e. Catholic Family News, a priest, a lawyer, a bishop) (a bishop does hold authority but he is not in himself infallible (Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Fellay), nor hold the authority of the pope).

That's a word-perfect description of how sedevacantists treat their clergy, and their intellectual leaders (Cekada, Sanborn, especially). See if you can identify a difference between sedes and non-sedes on this score, because I can't, and I agree it's lamentable (but also entirely natural, and to be expected, and not to be condemned in itself).

James Schroepfer wrote:

It also leaves children to grow up in confusion and in danger of falling back into the Novus Ordo.

One of the largest groups to leave the traditional milieu and return to the Novus Ordo was the group of nuns from the CMRI. I think that this was because they held a simplistic view of the crisis, and when some of their assumptions unravelled, their intellectual world collapsed completely. I asked them, that if they held the view that Benedict was pope, why not just associate with the SSPX, and they were totally against any such thought. Why? Because they believed the flim-flam about "If he's pope, you must obey!!!" When people replace knowledge of the faith with slogans, the end is in view.

James Schroepfer wrote:

In responds to the question of how I can account for such learned men not drawing the conclusions we do is because I believe their denial is a result of ignorance or willful denial.

Tell us which of them you have spoken to, or read articles by, so that you could assess and form this judgement.

James Schroepfer wrote:

The greatest misnomer that has in-trenched itself in the traditional Catholic circles is that Vatican II did not define any doctrine which Catholics must believe or it was not an infallible council.

Ask yourself how nearly all Catholics who resisted Vatican II came to that conclusion. I submit that it's because the case had real merit. And I think that's a more respectful view to take in the absence of proof to the contrary.

James Schroepfer wrote:

Having buried themselves in this position, most are not honest enough to take a look at the facts or are unwilling to do so because they would have to admit there current position is incorrect. Most people are unwilling to admit they are wrong.

We'll see how rigorous your are in applying these strictures to yourself.

James Schroepfer wrote:

To their credit, when I began to look into the matter most of the English translations are void of the text I posted earlier which is necessary for the council to be both infallible and an ecumenical council. I had to consult the latin text to find the excerpt at least after all 16 documents. Why was it not translated into english I do not know. I don’t know if it was left out of other translations into other languages. Without it I myself would not say Paul VI promulgated the documents as infallible. In my opinion it could be many of English priests never read the documents in latin and would be ignorant of the excerpt therefore making their opinion of the council being pastoral legitimate. But ignorance, whether willful or not, does not change facts, and the fact is Paul VI promulgated all 16 of the documents.

Thanks for the link the John Daly article- which I hadn't read before. It is very good and I agree with it. But I'm still inclined to think that there must be some good, coherent explanation why men vastly more learned than I do not come to the conclusion we arrive at, i.e. that Paul VI could not have been the Pope. Perhaps there really is no basis for men like Fr Gleize and Archbishop Lefebvre to reject the sedevacantist conclusion. However, I would not like to claim that, and so I hypothesise that there is some consistent way for them to plough the furrow they do.

Mike and James, may I ask how you account for such learned men not drawing the conclusions we do?

James,

I have thought for several days on this very good question. I cannot speak of Fr. Gleize, as I do not know too much about him, but I have thought and read very much about Archbishop Lefebvre.

In my opinion, if we are to understand what went wrong with the Catholic response to the crisis, we have to place ourselves in the late 1960's and 70's. During that time, many Catholics believed that Paul VI was trying to be a good pope, but he was surrounded by modernists. Some even believed he was held prisoner in the Vatican and a double was operating in his place.

I think that Catholics of that time, who had lived under the beloved Pope Pius XII, could not stomach the notion that Paul VI himself was complicit in the attack against the Church. Catholics of that time not only loved the Holy Father in principle, but were devoted to him, and instinctually would defend him against any attack.

This situation caused a sort of schizophrenia in Catholics, as they tried to love and obey Paul VI in the same way that Catholics did towards Pope Pius XII or Saint Pius X. To make matters worse, Catholics were falling away in droves, priests and religious in massive numbers were abandoning their vocations, the seminaries were teaching heresy and error, etc. No one in the hierarchy was doing anything publicly to stop this. It seems that all eyes were on Paul VI, that he would do something, but he did nothing except complain about it at times.

Archbishop Lefebvre began his initial resistance during this chaos. It appears to me that he was trying to balance his belief in the legitimacy of Paul VI with his actions of forming a seminary and then ordaining priests against the express wishes of Paul VI. He formed an idea that basically stated that he would obey all things that were of the Faith, and resist the modernist novelties.

Such an idea is commendable, as an initial reaction to the chaos that Archbishop Lefebvre found himself in. After all, he stood almost alone, with the exception of Bp. de Castro Mayer and himself, the entire hierarchy was either supporting heresy and error or remaining silent about it. This would cause any humble man to pause and ask himself, "why me, can no one else see this?"

As time went on, this initial and Catholic reaction did not develop and grasp with the the deeper questions of how heresy and error can be officially taught to the Church by the Pope, how impious sacramental rites, possibly invalid, could be promulgated or at least tolerated, how the Church could allow seminaries to teach error, tolerate heretical books, etc.

Then came the death of Paul VI, and with that many Catholics then had a ray of hope that things would go back to normal, and perhaps that is what Archbishop Lefebvre was waiting for, and why he was resisting sedevacantism up until that time. Soon faithful Catholics would learn that things were not going back, John Paul I dies, and then John Paul II comes and the revolution goes into overdrive.

The optimism soon fades away, John Paul promulgated a new Code which contains an explicitly heretical canon (844), which then places another contradiction for Catholics: how can the Church give an evil and heretical law? Then, as the scandal of Assisi approached, Archbishop Lefebvre in a beautiful moment of clarity explained Catholic principles of how to deal with a heretical pope, and was clearly moving towards moving beyond the initial reaction to a mature and comprehensive Catholic reaction to John Paul II based in the 1917 Code and the teaching of St. Robert Bellarmine.

To answer your question, I believe that Archbishop Lefebvre was hesitant, and for good reason, he was isolated from his brother bishops and wanted to have certainty before clearly identifying John Paul II as a heretic and not a pope. He had a heavy burden, as many around the world trusted him, and he had a responsibility to not lead them astray. In the end he did state publicly the unequivocal principle that a pope could not be ignored and that resisting evil was not enough, that we had to deal with the pope issue.

So, why did it end there in 1986? Clearly, Archbishop Lefebvre knew that resisting evil and error was not adequate, and the Church must address the case of a heretical pope. Yet, it appears that things reverted to the former initial position, no further public thinking or commentary was given.

It is as though the majority of Catholics, including the better educated are stuck in the 1970's, and are content to continue to resist heresy, error, and evil, while ignoring ecclesiology, the mark of Apostolicity of the Church in Her doctrine and orders, the mark of holiness of the Church, and lastly the indefectibility of the Church. A Catholic cannot consistently and logically believe these teachings and at the same time hold that Paul VI and his successors were popes. The solution to this inconsistency has been to in effect ignore it, and treat it as an unresolvable mystery.

All of these issues remain unresolved and grave contradictions remain in the minds of Catholics. The Archbishop was clearly dealing with this in 1986, but it is a mystery why he did not continue. After the death of Archbishop Lefebvre, it seems to me that the Society has been frozen in time. The status quo has remained, the SSPX continues to ordain priests, open chapels, administer the sacraments, but it has not dealt with the "pope issue" and the other ecclesiological issues, despite Mgr. Levebvre stating: "Now some priests (even some priests in the Society) say that we Catholics need not worry about what is happening in the Vatican; we have the true sacraments, the true Mass, the true doctrine, so why worry about whether the Pope is a heretic or an impostor or whatever; it is of no importance to us. But I think that is not true. If any man is important in the Church, it is the Pope". http://strobertbellarmine.net/lefebvresede.html

_________________Yours in JMJ,Mike

Tue Jul 23, 2013 6:45 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Sedevacantism, Safety, and Peace

Dear Mike, and James,

I agree with most of that, Mike, but I'd add something else, which is direct information from knowing many of these men: they see no alternative credible theory of the crisis than their own, which is not so much positively sedeplenist as "resist error and leave the larger questions for the future."

And that remains the real challenge for sedevacantists. One which the key intellectual clergy on our side keep avoiding. Obviously this is because they don't have the answer. The only exception is the Guerardians, who think that they do have an answer, and have to some very limited extent (a few articles), actually presented it. So even in their case, where is "the book"? A fortiori, where is ours?

_________________In Christ our King.

Tue Jul 23, 2013 2:47 pm

James Francis

Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:27 pmPosts: 80

Re: Sedevacantism, Safety, and Peace

Hello Mike and John,

Mike- yes, the question of what happened after 1986 has exercised my cerebellum too. Archbishop Lefebvre speculates that a time may come when he will declare the See vacant; describes the offices in Rome as occupied by anti-Christs; and then- nothing. It is a very curious silence- or so it seems to me.

Quote:

It is as though the majority of Catholics, including the better educated are stuck in the 1970's, and are content to continue to resist heresy, error, and evil, while ignoring ecclesiology, the mark of Apostolicity of the Church in Her doctrine and orders, the mark of holiness of the Church, and lastly the indefectibility of the Church. A Catholic cannot consistently and logically believe these teachings and at the same time hold that Paul VI and his successors were popes. The solution to this inconsistency has been to in effect ignore it, and treat it as an unresolvable mystery.

All of these issues remain unresolved and grave contradictions remain in the minds of Catholics. The Archbishop was clearly dealing with this in 1986, but it is a mystery why he did not continue. After the death of Archbishop Lefebvre, it seems to me that the Society has been frozen in time. The status quo has remained, the SSPX continues to ordain priests, open chapels, administer the sacraments, but it has not dealt with the "pope issue" and the other ecclesiological issues, despite Mgr. Levebvre stating: "Now some priests (even some priests in the Society) say that we Catholics need not worry about what is happening in the Vatican; we have the true sacraments, the true Mass, the true doctrine, so why worry about whether the Pope is a heretic or an impostor or whatever; it is of no importance to us. But I think that is not true. If any man is important in the Church, it is the Pope". http://strobertbellarmine.net/lefebvresede.html

I'd not thought of the parallel with the 70s before; I think it's apt. And I think our learned host is right when he says that SSPX clergy (absent a decent book length treatment of our argument) postpone indefinitely the question and get on with what can be done with certainty. To me, that seems like an eminently prudent policy.

John, you mention that the intellectual leaders amongst the clergy who share our views have not yet produced a book length treatment. But who do you have in mind as the intellectual sedevacantist (i.e. non-Guerardian) priests?

Wed Jul 24, 2013 9:07 am

James Francis

Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:27 pmPosts: 80

Re: Sedevacantism, Safety, and Peace

Quote:

In responds to the question of how I can account for such learned men not drawing the conclusions we do is because I believe their denial is a result of ignorance or willful denial.

Extraordinary, mate. Straight-up shocking.

Wed Jul 24, 2013 9:13 am

James Francis

Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:27 pmPosts: 80

Re: Sedevacantism, Safety, and Peace

Quote:

To return the question:In fairness though, James Francis, I think you need to lay out what this consistent way is these non-sedevacantist clergy “plough the furrow they do.”

James, have another look at what I actually said.

Quote:

Perhaps there really is no basis for men like Fr Gleize and Archbishop Lefebvre to reject the sedevacantist conclusion. However, I would not like to claim that, and so I hypothesise that there is some consistent way for them to plough the furrow they do.

I didn't claim that I know the "consistent way" in which these men reach differing conclusions to me. It seems obvious that they are incomparably more learned than I am, and that if I don't see something it doesn't mean there is nothing to see.

Wed Jul 24, 2013 9:22 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Sedevacantism, Safety, and Peace

James Francis wrote:

John, you mention that the intellectual leaders amongst the clergy who share our views have not yet produced a book length treatment. But who do you have in mind as the intellectual sedevacantist (i.e. non-Guerardian) priests?

Well, there is the obvious candidate, Fr. Cekada, who has written plenty of articles and now one book-length study (on the new liturgy), but has never explained where the Church is. I think most sedes in the English-speaking world consider him to be the leading sede theorist. The next is Fr. Daniel Ahern, who wrote a lengthy and brilliant article on the CMRI many years ago. He could certainly write a book on the sedevacantist thesis. Likewise Fr. Joseph Collins, writer of this article: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/nrec_collins.html

But yes, the stocks are thin! Is this cause, or effect? In other words, are there so few sede priests who could write a scholarly work on the crisis, focussing on ecclesiology and the papacy, because there has been no decent book on the subject produced? Or is there no such book because there are so few intellectuals amongst our priests?

A point made by JS Daly some time ago is that Providence has evidently arranged the present situation so as to make it pretty impenetrable. The lack of decent, rigorous, scholarly works grappling with the problems we face is an aspect of this Providence. In other words, God could repair this lack in a jiffy if He so chose. He doesn't.

Dear John,Of course the extent of my knowledge on the various men who started the traditional movement is not even a drop in comparision to yours. I have read some of their writings and listened to various people who did know them personally. Mike’s response was much better than my own, as my response was not meant to question the intentions of in particular Archbishop Lefebvre or other non-sedevacantists from the 1970-1980 era as it is difficult to understand them from just their writtings. I am more familiar with the writings of the non-sedevacantists of my day which would include people such as Bishop Williamson and the other bishops of the SSPX, their priests, Father Gruner, and other non-sedevacantist writers. What I said about ignorance or willfull denial applied not to those in the 1970-1990 but to those non-sedevacantists of today in the USA. Things have become clearer in the last 20 years.

That Bishop Fellay seems to be shrinking the theological box came from several SSPX priests through my cousin going to School in St. Mary’s Kansas. Since I do not take this as concrete evidence please note I used the word seems.

Again, I must disagree with you on the sedevacantist position being wedded with the heretical positions or others which scare people away such as the home-alone position. I am a sedevacantist and hold none of these positions. It does not necessarily follow then that being a sedevacantist results in one denying lets say the visible hierarchy of the Church. So it is possible to be a sedevacantist and Catholic.

However, the point I was making is by one holding the non-sedevacantist position it does necessarily result in one either accepting the heresies of Vatican II or rejecting lawful authority. The end is un-catholic either way. It does result in one becoming a material heretic or a material schismatic. There is no other conclusion. One can absolutely be confused and leave questions he cannot answer to the future. But in that case he does not have moral certainty to reject his lawful authority or their rulings on the matter. The only was we can reject their teachings as error is if we have reached moral certainty it is error. The only way we can reject the teachings of a pope is if we know with moral certainty he is not the pope. If we cannot come to that conclusion with certainty, we cannot reject his teachings with certainty for he is the one endowed with infallibility, not us.

There is a distinct difference between the way sedevacantist and non-sedevacantist treat their clergy. The sedevacantists for the most part submit themselves to their clergy understanding the clergy are more learned then the lay person is. It may certainly be lamentable they are not more learned themselves, but often they have families and are devoid the time necessary to study these matters. Having no higher authority to turn to because there is no pope, they are then forced to accept the teachings of one of lesser authority.

The non-sedevacantists, however, reject the highest authority by rejecting their “pope” and placing it in those who are suppose to be in submission to his authority. It is true, like the sedevacantists, most are busy with their families, but they place their clergy’s authority above that of the Roman Pontiff despite the fact they have a “pope” or the higher authority. In effect these clergy usurp the Roman Pontiff’s authority and in many cases these clergy judge his rulings and teachings.

It is not a flim-flam that if one has a pope he is suppose to obey him. Sheep are suppose to follow the shepherd who was commanded by Christ to feed his sheep. This is the Catholic teaching on the matter as far as I know, perhaps I am wrong. But to me it seems the CMRI nuns were at least logical in their conclusion.

Nor do this group of nuns represent the majority of sedevacantists as if to say sedevacantists have a better chance of falling back into the Novus Ordo then non-sedevacantists. As a matter of fact I lived in the non-sedevacantist world for most of my life. I watched how in a fifteen year time period a non-sedevacantist traditional chapel went from a 500 strong parish of families to a few remaining elderly people of less than 80. I have seen the young people run out of Catholicism back into the Novus Ordo like a spring flood. Not only have I seen this in the Church I grew up in, but it my own family. It is like the Jews leaving Egypt. This does not happen in SSPX chapels or sedevacantists chapels as much for two different reasons. The SSPX chapels because the SSPX (like the SSPV) is like a cult, and the sedevacantist chapels because the people know the Novus Ordo is not Catholic and/or their group is like a cult.

While it is true that nearly all Catholics who resisted Vatican II said the council was not infallible, the majority of Catholics around the globe who converted over to the Novus Ordo said it was. So which majority holds more merit? I am just saying that most of the Catholic world at the time accepted it an infallible council. To me it does not prove the case either way.

I am restudying whether or not the Vatican II Council was an act of the Supreme Magisterium after reading what you linked. If I am wrong I will most certainly recant. But this will take some time.

James

Fri Jul 26, 2013 10:37 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Sedevacantism, Safety, and Peace

Martin wrote:

John Lane wrote:

Dear Mike, and James,.... So even in their case, where is "the book"? A fortiori, where is ours?

Perhaps somebody with a great deal more patience than I can answer you. You have read a couple of articles by Fr. Cekada and you believed them. There's an answer to every one of your ideas here on this site, and I encourage you to read extensively.

In the mean time, I will content myself with flatly denying your fundamental premise, that it is logical or compatible with the Catholic Faith to adopt an error or heresy because somebody that one regards as a true authority appears to teach that error or heresy. The fundamental principle of absolutely everything is the exact opposite. The faith is the measure of all else. If one bearing authority teaches something incompatible with what the Church has already taught, one is strictly obliged to refuse to believe the novelty.

_________________In Christ our King.

Sat Jul 27, 2013 3:28 am

James Schroepfer

Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 4:53 pmPosts: 100

Re: Sedevacantism, Safety, and Peace

Dear John,

Absolutely!!! Sedevacantists who follow Father Cekada's teaching of no visible hierarchy are as much in serious error as the non-sedevacantists who believe the Catholic Church can teach error. My point was simply in the non-sedevacantist position b follows a. This is not necessarily true for the sedevacantist position although there are many sedevacantists who accept this. I don't know for sure who or where the hierarchy is, but I know they must be somewhere. At the same time I am not a cekadite. If I was I would be a home-aloner. The only reason I did not become a home aloner was because of the Catholic teaching that there must be a visible hierarchy. I have read Cekada's articles and I have also read most of yours. When a question arrives, I try to revert back to a catechism per-1960. On the visibility of the hierarchy, Cekada is wrong and you are right. Just as the Church must have visible members, she must have a visible hierarchy. Deny a visible hierarchy and the Church is gone. This is why the Council of Trent said that holy orders was one of the three sacraments of paramount necessity.

I think you have just misread what I wrote before though.

Still working on researching Vatican II. Can the circumstances the pope issues a statement indicate who he is binding or does he specifically have to state who?

Who are the visible members of the Church though? I was reading The Church of Christ by Father Berry and he writes that Catholics who are material heretics or error in good faith are to be considered outside the Church. This seems to encompass quite a few traditionalists even.

James

Sat Jul 27, 2013 2:07 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Sedevacantism, Safety, and Peace

James, I expressed my main objection. It had nothing to do with the visibility of the Church, but rather to do with that slogan of Fr. Cekada's, "If he is your pope, adopt his errors!" It's rubbish.

James Schroepfer wrote:

Can the circumstances the pope issues a statement indicate who he is binding or does he specifically have to state who?

Read John Daly's article on infallibility and Vatican II. That should give you plenty to chew on.

James Schroepfer wrote:

Who are the visible members of the Church though? I was reading The Church of Christ by Father Berry and he writes that Catholics who are material heretics or error in good faith are to be considered outside the Church. This seems to encompass quite a few traditionalists even.

James, he says the opposite, quite explicitly. Read pages 224ff.

_________________In Christ our King.

Sun Jul 28, 2013 12:40 am

James Schroepfer

Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 4:53 pmPosts: 100

Re: Sedevacantism, Safety, and Peace

The slogan "if he is your pope, adopt his errors" is certainly incorrect. But if he is your pope, a catholic must accept his authority in his official acts.

Now after looking at different articles and theology manuals and examining Vatican II, I must agree, because there is nothing explicitly defined as being necessary to hold as a Catholic, Vatican II appears to not fall under the solemn magisterium of the Church. It still would be impious to state it contains error.

However, that being said, I don't see how it could not fall under the universal and ordinary magisterium of the Church. Needless to say the argument is irrelevant for today with the promulgation of the 1983 Code of Canon Law. The promulgation of the Code is binding on all Catholics and as it is the rule of the Church, it must be infallible in faith and morals in order for the Church to remain holy. What society is holy which enforces laws which are evil? My understanding is because it is a official act of the Church if JP II is your pope, you must then accept it. For one to refuse to do so is to reject JP II's authority i.e. be in schism. It cannot be rejected on the grounds of it goes against faith or morals as stated above the Code must be infallible. And if it is a disciplinary matter, the pope has the final say in the matter as well. This is my problem with the SSPX position and why I said it is not the 1970's where I could see the SSPX position as a possibility.

The final point is Father Berry The Church of Christ does not explicitly state that a Catholic who is a material schismatic or heretic is still in the Church on pg 224. I would argue it is vaguely implied. I was confused because on pg 128 and 129 he writes as follows:"Excluded From Membership.Manifest heretics and schismatics are excluded from membership in the Church. Heretics separate themselves from the unity of faith and worship; schismatics from the unity of government, and both reject the authority of the Church. So far as exclusion form the Church is concerned, it matters not whether the heresy or schism be formal or material. Those born and reared in heresy or schism may be sincere in their belief and practice, yet they publicly and willingly reject the Church and attach themselves to sects opposed to her; they are not guilty of sin in the matter, but they are not members of the Church."

The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma says the same. However, the key to the matter is the person must know he is going contrary to the teaching authority of the Church. It is the rejection of the Church's authority which makes the act heresy, not the error. Where the point was confusing was the difference between a baptized catholic erring in good faith and a baptized protestant. Both prior to the age of seven would be considered members of the Church; after the age of seven, the catholic erring in good faith would, the protestant would not. Both could be in good faith, therefore not being pertinacious, how could the protestant be considered outside the Church? It must be the public rejection of the Church's authority. Hence Father Berry says pg 128:"A doctrine contrary to revealed truth is usually stigmatized as heretical, but a person who professes an heretical doctrine is not necessarily a heretic. Heresy, from the Greek hairesis, signifies a choosing; therefore a heretic is one who chooses for himself in matters of faith, thereby rejecting the authority of the Church established by Christ to teach all men the truths of revelation. He rejects the authority of the Church by following his own judgment or by submitting to an authority other than that established by Christ. A person who submits to the authority of the Church and wishes to accept all her teachings, is not a heretic, even though he profess heretical doctrines through ignorance of what the Church really teaches; he implicitly accepts the true doctrine in his general intention to accept all that the Church teaches.”

Tue Oct 22, 2013 2:25 pm

Mario Looch

Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 6:06 pmPosts: 95

Re: Sedevacantism, Safety, and Peace

John Lane wrote:

Lorraine wrote:

Thanks from me too, John.

Just so I am certain that I understand you correctly, and please bear with my dull mind, are you saying that coming to a concrete decision as to whether the pope is the pope or not is not what is important, it is enough to see the disaster that passes for the Catholic Church these days. Therefore, going to a sedevacantist chapel is a life boat to get into during this crisis to preserve one's Faith?

What I am saying is that it is true that Benedict is not pope. That's my judgement. I think it objectively certain, or I wouldn't hold it.

I am also aware, having debated sedevacantism for 15 or more years with everybody from bishops of the Society to kooks on the Internet, that "sedevacantism" is usually seen as a dogmatic position which involves condemning others, abandoning the Mass, and causing lots of trouble for the clergy. For this reason I am trying to undermine this view of our position, and suggesting that SSPX people look at adopting at least the position of the Archbishop.

People who adopt his position are relatively outside the influence of the Modernists, but as we know, not completely so. But at least they will be against a deal, and the evidence for this is very strong. The SSPX clergy who are faithful to the Archbishop are opposed to a deal. The anti-sedevacantists are zealous for a deal.

As for which chapel to attend, I have no particular desire to go to a sedevacantist chapel. I want a valid priest, who is certainly a Catholic, who gives good sermons, and who isn't a fanatic. At many sedevacantist chapels such a priest can be found, but at many others the case is obviously different. I think it's a case-by-case thing.

Just to be clear, if you had two chapels, one SV, one not, equally close with equally good sermons you would be 100% indifferent as to which one you would attend? This would mean, I suppose, that neither Priest touches the Pope issue either way in his sermons, and that the R & R Priest does not speak about the necessity of disobeying Popes that are believed to be valid. Further does this mean that you are 100% indifferent as to whether a Mass in offered una cum false Pope or not?

I just want to be clear. I just realized you may have answered in this thread but I have not gone through the entire thing. I hope you do not mind me asking.

Tue May 13, 2014 1:22 pm

Mario Looch

Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 6:06 pmPosts: 95

Re: Sedevacantism, Safety, and Peace

RobertJS wrote:

John Lane wrote:

I am aware that there is a general feeling amongst probably many sedes to the effect that sede clergy "get it" and therefore they are safer in some sense. My experience doesn't support this view. I think sede clergy tend to be quite distinctly less well educated than SSPX priests, for example. This probably has several causes, but chief among them is that sede groups are less well resourced than the SSPX. Another is that the sede clergy on the whole are simply not very interested in theology. This may surprise some, but it's an obvious fact, despite the irony of it. Not only is that true, it's even true that sede clergy, on the whole, are not very interested in the theology and law related to sedevacantism itself.

In my rich experiences dealing with SSPX clergy and laity, I have come solidly to the contrary opinion. But, aside from my own experiences, Bp. Robert Neville gives testimony. He was trained in the SSPX (post-Lefebvre). Shortly after ordination he realized he had the wrong position and then worked under Bp. Sanborn for several years. So, this is a man having sincerely held both positions, with a length of time in both worlds. He told me, personally, that he had been subject to poor training in the SSPX.

Yes. Many SV clergy went through SSPX seminary training in their better days.

Tue May 13, 2014 2:22 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Sedevacantism, Safety, and Peace

Maria Looch wrote:

Just to be clear, if you had two chapels, one SV, one not, equally close with equally good sermons you would be 100% indifferent as to which one you would attend?

I don't mind you asking at all. I was in LA for two weeks recently. I went to the SSPX chapel at Arcadia on both Sundays. I know the priest at the CMRI chapel and I consider him a friend (I have hosted him in my home), although we haven't communicated for a long time. The CMRI chapel was a lot further from where I was staying, so that was probably a factor, but to be frank I'm an SSPX person, I know so many of their priests and I am grateful to them and I have a very high regard for them. They are solid in the faith, focus on what matters, and they generally display a great deal of real piety and common sense. One tends to stay with the group that one knows, I think. But if I'd been staying near the CMRI chapel I'd probably have gone there instead. I really do like them and have nothing against them. They're just not my regular clergy.

So that's my own attitude. I just think the "una cum" thing is complete nonsense. I took it a lot more seriously ten to fifteen years ago, but the longer one absorbs and contemplates the arguments the more their apparent solidity evaporates, so that I really can't feel that they have any weight at all. I don't mean any disrespect to those for whom those arguments carry weight, I am just explaining how I see it.

_________________In Christ our King.

Tue May 13, 2014 3:42 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Sedevacantism, Safety, and Peace

Maria Looch wrote:

Yes. Many SV clergy went through SSPX seminary training in their better days.

If you are referring to the seminary training having better days, my impression is that it has improved over time very significantly. In the early days they had to take whatever professors they could get, whereas now they have men like Fr. Gleize, for example, who really is a deep thinker and a proper scholar. He's just an example - the senior seminary staff are generally outstanding, as far as I have seen.

_________________In Christ our King.

Tue May 13, 2014 3:45 pm

Mario Looch

Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 6:06 pmPosts: 95

Re: Sedevacantism, Safety, and Peace

Quote:

I don't mean any disrespect to those for whom those arguments carry weight, I am just explaining how I see it.

Thank you for adding that at the end John.

Tue May 13, 2014 4:11 pm

Mario Looch

Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 6:06 pmPosts: 95

Re: Sedevacantism, Safety, and Peace

John Lane wrote:

Maria Looch wrote:

Yes. Many SV clergy went through SSPX seminary training in their better days.

If you are referring to the seminary training having better days, my impression is that it has improved over time very significantly. In the early days they had to take whatever professors they could get, whereas now they have men like Fr. Gleize, for example, who really is a deep thinker and a proper scholar. He's just an example - the senior seminary staff are generally outstanding, as far as I have seen.

There is something I did not know. Thank you for that John. I was aware that generally speaking the SSPX had better formation than other clergy including SV though many SV clergy were in fact trained by the SSPX. I had no idea the training had gotten better since the time of Lefebvre.

I wonder how the SSPX clergy "cannot know" that a valid Pope cannot bind a heretical council, doubtful or invalid sacraments and "an incentive to impiety" Mass on the people along with heretical cannon law, and anti-Catholic Saints.

I also wonder how they cannot know that all must submit to all the Roman Pontiff binds on the Church or risk their salvation. Here I wonder if they in fact do know better but do not want to scandalize the faithful. Do you have any idea how well trained clergy cannot be aware of the above facts? Would you also agree that SV is a key issue and that if we could unite on this issue we might be able to more effectively sanctify souls?

Tue May 13, 2014 4:19 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Sedevacantism, Safety, and Peace

Maria Looch wrote:

I wonder how the SSPX clergy "cannot know" that a valid Pope cannot bind a heretical council, doubtful or invalid sacraments and "an incentive to impiety" Mass on the people along with heretical cannon law, and anti-Catholic Saints.

I also wonder how they cannot know that all must submit to all the Roman Pontiff binds on the Church or risk their salvation.

I really don't understand why you think they don't know these things. I can only imagine that some caricature or other of the SSPX position has caught your eye and you have taken it as their real position. Anyway, just quote whatever it is you are relying upon and we'll have a look at it.

Maria Looch wrote:

Would you also agree that SV is a key issue and that if we could unite on this issue we might be able to more effectively sanctify souls?

It hasn't occurred to me that my job is to sanctify souls, except insofar as that is included in my responsibility for my family. What do you mean? Who are "we" and how ought we to be santifying souls?

I think the key issues are sin and penance, for most of us. That is, amongst the things we can do anything about. We can't do anything about the status of the Holy See except to notice it and point it out to others. Now, if the typical sedevacantist was half so keen on avoiding sin (including the sin of rash judgement, for example) as he is on this question that he can do nothing about, I'm pretty confident we'd be convincing a lot more people that our view is right. Do you agree?

_________________In Christ our King.

Wed May 14, 2014 7:28 am

Mario Looch

Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 6:06 pmPosts: 95

Re: Sedevacantism, Safety, and Peace

Quote:

I wonder how the SSPX clergy "cannot know" that a valid Pope cannot bind a heretical council, doubtful or invalid sacraments and "an incentive to impiety" Mass on the people along with heretical cannon law, and anti-Catholic Saints.

I also wonder how they cannot know that all must submit to all the Roman Pontiff binds on the Church or risk their salvation.

I really don't understand why you think they don't know these things. I can only imagine that some caricature or other of the SSPX position has caught your eye and you have taken it as their real position. Anyway, just quote whatever it is you are relying upon and we'll have a look at it.

To clarify, if the SSPX clergy do know these things why do they insist those who bound these things on the Church are valid Popes?

Wed May 14, 2014 10:07 am

Mario Looch

Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 6:06 pmPosts: 95

Re: Sedevacantism, Safety, and Peace

Quote:

Maria Looch wrote:Would you also agree that SV is a key issue and that if we could unite on this issue we might be able to more effectively sanctify souls?

John LaneIt hasn't occurred to me that my job is to sanctify souls, except insofar as that is included in my responsibility for my family. What do you mean? Who are "we" and how ought we to be santifying souls?

I think the key issues are sin and penance, for most of us. That is, amongst the things we can do anything about. We can't do anything about the status of the Holy See except to notice it and point it out to others. Now, if the typical sedevacantist was half so keen on avoiding sin (including the sin of rash judgement, for example) as he is on this question that he can do nothing about, I'm pretty confident we'd be convincing a lot more people that our view is right. Do you agree?

I need to be more precise in my wording. I apologize for that.

By "if 'we' could unite on the issue" I mean the SSPX clergy and faithful along with the SV clergy and faithful. If "we" were united on the issue couldn't we be in a better position to sanctify souls? There would be no division on the "una cum" or "home alone" or whether it is necessary to obey the Pope or not etc. Instead of fighting each other we could try something new like converting the world or something.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum